Civil Airliner incidents analysis

[dov]

Hallo

After watching some videos on YouTube of the Flight Channel, I watched two types of aircraft manufacturers. Airbus & Boeing.

 

 

 

For my interest were all videos, which showed flights without physical damage as fire or collision with another aircraft.

Some clues out of it. To my perception there is a pattern of incidences which dominate:

 

·        Unclear reading of instruments, because of similar showing two different meanings

·        Unclear maintenance instruction, without giving proper reasoning for doing so

·        In electronic circuits: Putting some algorithm behind to detect not reliable inputs with a certain logic, which is absolute absurd!

·        Not limiting input amplitudes, so they can overstress the aircraft and result in a fatal crash.

·        Unspecified minimum distance of an aircraft before haven taken off to avoid wake turbulence.

·        In some other cases: To install a unit preventing the aircraft from motion until all instruments are up!

·        On the other hand it showed, that flying skills in stall situations are at low level. Private aerobatics could improve this deficit.

 

 If an aircraft type is about 20 years in the operative field, many of this flaws are corrected. Not all of course.

Some automatisms are contradicting itself. Automatic voices vs. real air controller! Who is the source to follow!

Or thinking about a check system, if all external probes are working properly! Not damaged, hole free of foreign objects or water or ice!

 

Happy modelling

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

19 minutes ago, dov said:

 

·        Unclear maintenance instruction, without giving proper reasoning for doing so

·        Not limiting input amplitudes, so they can overstress the aircraft and result in a fatal crash.

·        Unspecified minimum distance of an aircraft before haven taken off to avoid wake turbulence.

 

 

 

 

 

Of those;

 

·        Not limiting input amplitudes, so they can overstress the aircraft and result in a fatal crash.

Acceleration rates vary with airspeed and density altitude, whilst ultimate loading depends on the exact loading of the aircraft. Even the current weight is not that useful as ultimate positive G load, for example, will be higher if the total weight comprises more payload and less fuel in the wings as compared to less payload and more fuel in the wings, as fuel distributed in the wings offers bending relief to the structure. Overstressing of airliners is usually a panic response to having lost control of the aircraft anyway e.g. the Air France crash over the Atlantic where they entered a spiral dive after stalling at high altitude. Not pulling too much G doesn't mean the aircraft wouldn't have broken up from exceeding Vne anyway, nor indeed flying into the surface.

 

 

 

·        Unspecified minimum distance of an aircraft before haven taken off to avoid wake turbulence.

Again this is highly variable - with a brisk but manageable crosswind you could take off shortly after a Boeing 747 has cleaned up in a Cessna as the wake vortices will have travelled sideways out of your path. On a calm day it's a completely different story. Adding restrictions based on worst case circumstances needlessly would cripple busy airports.

[dov]

Hello

 

For Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies:

 

Of course, in order to limit the input amplitudes, I need reliable values. These are already there. All flight data is bundled anyway. If you link them cleverly, then a lot is possible. If you do that stupid, you can see it on the videos. A lot can be done with relatively little effort.

 

Adding restrictions based on worst case circumstances needlessly would cripple busy airports. Safety First is THE principle in aviation.

We can reduce it, see what happens after a JAL B747 left NY. The Queens crash! Or to operate by guess?

 

The complexity of today's airliners is packed with many programs anyway.

Here the case arises that certain programs make flying impossible for one another.

Just assume SAS crash with the MD, or the 737max in Ethiopia.

 

What I can say myself:

As an designer and enginer for devices for mass transportation  (my transportation systems move more passengers each day than all the airlines in the world per day!) Is very simple:

Today in comnunity and in companies we talk too less to one another.

Every specialist sits in his small room or open-plan office with his team.

And lives in his bubble.

Then it happens that new programs are not communicated to the flight crew at all.

Or in order to save as much money as possible, easy programs can be installed on the laptop to reduce the cost of type rating.

MAX stands for maximum profit in money.

Or maximum nonsense.

Today we consider the hunt for money and any sacrifice on the way to be legitimate.

Cost what it may! The customer participates!

Every customer will wake up at some point.

To fly for 10 euros across Europe, who should pay for that?

Anyway, what I saw in the videos, even if half is true, today I'm glad I made my money elsewhere.

 

Each accident, is an accident too much!

 

Happy modelling

[torqueofthedevil]

On 9/16/2021 at 3:03 PM, dov said:

Safety First is THE principle in aviation.

Depends which kind of aviation you're involved in!